The neoconservative online publication FrontPage Magazine held a symposium on December 9, 2005, called: “The Death of France”. The debates, presided over by the editor in chief of the magazine Jamie Glazov, met the Islamologists Mohamed Ibn Guadi (professor of Strasbourg University and adviser to Milnet.com), Hans-Peter Raddatz (German Orientalist who believes that Islam intrinsically carries violence) and Olivier Guitta (distinguished collaborator of the site FuckFrance.com), as well as Nidra Poller (children’s writer and yet, collaborator of the blog MerdeinFrance) and the French journalist Michel Gurfinkiel (chief editor of the weekly newspaper Valeurs actuelles).
According to the participants, Paris would have been “burned” during the “Islamic riots”. As a result of the “rejection to integration” by the “Muslim immigrants” who reside in the largest suburbs of the city, the successive French governments would have acted for a long time as the ostrich and looked for a peaceful solution based on millions of dollars as subsidies. This social action would not have prevented the outbreak of the “civil war”, thus becoming the failure of the French model. Actually, France would be unable to carry out the necessary “strong military actions” to preserve its identity and would have entered its stage “of agony”.
The most amazing thing of the symposium was not that the participants had described imaginary developments in an imaginary France, but their capacity to link stupid statements without being aware of it: “The problem is that most of the immigrants were born in France”; “The immigrant status is kept one generation after the other. It is a privileged status that offers more rights and less responsibilities”, among others.
Notice that the rhetoric of FrontPage Magazine tries to exclusively convince the US readers of the need to establish in France the military repression on the Muslim community. Our question is: What is the neoconservatives’ project for France and with whom do they count on to undertake it?